On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > I admire the good-faith efforts that the Spark (and Solr) folks have put > in attempting to comply with their interpretation of ASF requirements, but I > don't think we should encourage podlings to emulate the current state of their > licensing documentation.
Yes, but much more importantly, it is not *violating an OSS license* to distribute software that says 'you must include X in a NOTICE file if you distribute this' without including X in the NOTICE file? Yes it means greater downstream burden, yes it may have originated from a 'hack', but that doesn't seem to make the license not say what it says. Obviously I'd rather not have to do this either. It's certainly a best practice to not put things in NOTICE that aren't actually required. For example upstream NOTICE may refer to components that the downstream project does not distribute. I think it's also a good reason to think about whether a project actually needs to distribute third-party code versus merely depend on it via Maven. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
